TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnovers at -Rs.4,43,94,457.69/- and ₹ 67,37,867.62/- respectively. The petitioner admitted the rate of turnover tax at 1.25% on the taxable turnover in, terms of Sec.6-B(1) of the KST Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes assessed and concluded the assessment by levying turnover tax at 1.75% on the total turnover. The petitioner filed a return of turnover for the year ending 31.3.1994 declaring total and taxable turnover at ₹ 6,09,99,064.67 and 21,85,521.00 respectively. The assessee admitted the rate of turnover tax at 1.253 on the total turnover. Per the year ending 31.3.1995, the petitioner filed a return of turnover, declaring total and taxable turnovers at ₹ 7,86,64,125.93 and ₹ 2,09,57,251.17 respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnovers at ₹ 10,86.93,924.66 and ₹ 2,79,26,405.93 respectively. The petitioner admitted the rate of turnover tax at 1%. The assessing authority concluded by levying 3% on the total turnover. For the year ending 31.3.2000, the petitioner filed a return of turnover declaring total and taxable turnovers at ₹ 9,66,91,926.66 and ₹ 2,42,56,992.15 respectively. The petitioner admitted the rate of turnover tax at is. The assessing authority concluded by levying 22 on the total turnover. 3. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the assessment filed an appeal before the appellate authority, who dismissed the same. The second appeal was filed and was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, the assessee is before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Curing Works limited in W.P.Nos.6609/2000 and 17070- 71/2060 this Court has chosen to reject the said petition after noticing the upholding of Sec.6-B of the Act. The same is confirmed in Writ Appeal Nos.3953 to 55/2003. In the light of Sec.6-B, what is required to be noticed is as to whether the assessee is justified in claiming deduction of certain items which is not provided under Rule 6 of the Rules. At this stage, we must also notice a binding Judgment of this Court in S.N.Guggari Co., Vs. Commissioner of Conmercial Taxes in 110 STC 426. In the said case a Division Bench of this Court has ruled that the expression total turnover as used in Sec. 6 of the Act, no doubt, will have the same meaning as u/s.2(u-2) of the Act but for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee authorities noticing the section and also the case laws have rightly in our view have taken a view against the assessee. 8. Two Judgments are relied upon by the assessee, namely A.V.Fernandez Vs. The State of Kerala in 1957(8) STC 561 and B.P.Automobiles Vs. State of Karnataka in 55 STC 93. Both these Judgments on facts stand on a different footing in the light of the Rules and the Statute which govern total turnover in a case like this. These two Judgments are therefore not available to the assessee in these cases. 9. We do not find any justifiable grounds available for the assessee for consideration. Petition stands rejected. The order is up held. Questions of law are answered against the assesses. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
